Are we losing this war, and how bad?

[Dave@Moon]

The "war" isn't with hot-rodders. I've met them and they are me. (I did mention I'm assisting in my brother's rod project several times before, even on this thread.) The "war" is with the dwindling will to challenge ourselves and the dwindling respect for our cars "antiquity".<P>We toss around the term "antique car" like we're talking about Beanie Babies. But even among Beanie Babies there are rare/valued pieces which are and should be treated with greater respect than the masses of it's ilk. <P>I didn't post a thread about people using up '33 Plymouth bodies for street rods. It was others that made that kind of leap. I'd hoped that the difference between a Plymouth and a Huppmobile would be something that needn't be explained here.<P>Hot rodding and street rodding <I>are</I> allies of the antique car hobby. And they <I>do not</I> get the respect they deserve, especially in the marketplace. But their worst enemy (in my opinion) are the members of that community that would offer up hand-built Ferrari and Pierce-Arrow competators for working material.<P>Since I posted on this thread last night something has been bothering me. It's 1937hd45's use of the term "last engine block" to describe the Full Classic Chrysler's missing engine. It can be construed that there are no more engine blocks available (known or unknown) from that language. It speaks to the undercurrent in this thread that I've been trying to get to. So does Deering's post about restoration burnout. It is the idea that since the ideal of an authentic restoration is practically impossible, the pursuit of one is folly. <P>This is the war we're losing. You can look through dozens of the most recent threads on this forum and find examples.<P>And this is the forum of the organization that's supposed to be promoting authenticity.<P>The fact that a car's engine block is worth $20K is <B>not</B> an argument against restoring it. That is typical of cars of that ilk. It's the price of admission the CCCA-grade automobiledom. If it were a Duesenberg (and it might as well be) that were being offered up as a body shell for street rodding that would be more obvious, but the point never-the-less remains. <P>And it took a 40 year old hot-rodder who's older than his oldest car to make the point! <P>Mostly alone. <P>Here.<P>

[1937hd45]

Peterg, The 1948 cutoff date was not set by me, the National Street Rod Association did that at their founding. This not ment to be contentious in anyway, just a statement of fact. We are now getting into a discussion of semantics, something AACA excells in.The post 1948 modified cars are best discribed as "Street Machines". Please don't think for a moment that just because someone desides to restore a car, the car will be better off. I've seen fine automobiles ruined in the hands of inexperienced owners.

[Guest]

Dave@moon,<P>You've managed 12 posts and over half the text in this thread without being succinct in what your point is. I?m stupid, spell it out for me so I can understand what the heck you are trying to say.<P>Peter

[Dave@Moon]

My point originally was that the values and ethics of restoring authentic antique cars has become so remote/distant to the public at large that you now can find (without really looking) truly heinous mis-appropriation of the scarcest automotive resources you can think of. <P>Those who've lost interest anyway can stop reading now.<P>I <B>don't</B> think it is unthinkable anymore to buy and severely modify mint restored cars, or unique/irreplacable vehicles. Many people, even those apparantly cognizant their value, advocate using the rarest remnants of our automotive past as temporal playthings. Truly restored/authentic versions of these cars appear to them (it seems) as little more than the absurd constructions of an eccentric & priviledged class of elitist snobs, if indeed they concern themselves with them at all.<P>My worst fears for this thread were realized when even this group found little disturbing in modifying the specific vehicles I cited. At that point I think the thread's point expanded into an area that disturbs me, and I hope the rest of us. This lack of imbued value on our cars appears to be seeping into this very group. <P>I fear for us.

[Guest]

Here is a link to another heinous act about to be perpetrated.<BR> <A HREF="http://www.hotrodders.com/cgibin/ubb/19/000308" TARGET=_blank>http://www.hotrodders.com/cgibin/ubb/19/000308</A> <P>Maybe you should be discussing this with the perpetrators of the crime instead of the defenders of the faith. I guess this qualifies me as a traitor to be supporting/participating in both. Does it?

[Guest leadfoot]

@Moon:<BR>I never made the connection before with your "save the whales" mentality (and livelihood) and your interest in preserving automotive history.<P>I try to do what I can to preserve cars that I control. What others do with cars they own is their business. I would like to dissuade them from destroying good antiques, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it.<P>Is this an elitist, and self-centered, hobby. I suppose so. But it's interesting to take truly old iron, and some of the history that goes with the car, to a show the general public attends. There are a lot of people out there, young and old, who are turned on by nice old cars.

[Tom Deering]

Dave, <P> Don't give up the ship just yet. You are getting input on this thread from a group of DFers who weren't participants a couple years ago. I think what we are seeing in this thread is input from a more realistic perspective. <P> It ain't love that makes the world go round baby; it's dinero, francs, and anything else we want to call the "Almighty Dollar".<BR>We probably don't find it any more palatable than you. Values be damned! A modified car will always cost less to construct than an authentic restoration of the same calibre. The person who wants an altered car can afford to spend more on the "Core" than the authenticity purist. I think the reasons are obvious.<P> I'd be surprised if your '60s Buick stock replacement engine didn't cost a heap more bucks in travel, core cost, and rebuild than a more common Chevy 350. Right? <P> Tom <P>P.S. In my version on the Monticello analogy, they're using vinyl siding.

[Dave@Moon]

Chuck,<P>I do too, remember?<P>Leadfoot,<P>The largest concentration of antique car enthusiasts I ever came in contact with in the general populace were my fellow PA-Dept. of Environmental Resources employees. Few of them had enough money to act on their interest, but they were full of stories and questions.<P>Environmentalism comes as an outgrowth of a protectionist/preservationist outlook on life. There is nothing inconsistant with wanting to save redwoods and Ramblers. It's actually a very tight fit.

[Dave@Moon]

Chuck, <P>I just had time to check your link. It's for a '48 Plymouth business coupe. <P>I have to ask. Do you <I>not</I> see the difference between the '48 Plymouth following the hoards of it's type down the street rod pipeline and cars I've posted above? Just the production numbers alone (there were nearly 48,000 of the '48 coupes made in 2 series) should be telling you a pretty scary story by now.

[Guest]

I am on your side also Dave, please check the link again.<BR> <A HREF="http://www.hotrodders.com/cgibin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=19&t=000308" TARGET=_blank>http://www.hotrodders.com/cgibin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=19&t=000308</A> <P>The best way to spread the word is to help other car people to realize the value of their antique and perhaps persuade them to keep history alive and running. <P>Gentle education is the key to helping a young beginner to realize the value (monetary and historical) of his old car is what I endeavour to do.<P>This is my creed I pledge to you.<P>All I can do is tackle them one at a time and try my best to stem the tide.<P>Hey that kind of rhymes!<p>[ 04-17-2002: Message edited by: 4 Jaw Chuck ]

[Dave@Moon]

[Dave@Moon]

Here's my thread regarding rare cars being hot-rodded today.

[1937hd45]

Cancer wasn't good enough, now you're at war! One cheery guy aren't ya Dave?

[rodlars]

Pretty interesting thread you have going here Dave. To answer your question bluntly, yes. The grandaddy of AACA meets, Hershey, attracts maybe 1500 cars, or so. The NSRA Nats attracts around 10,000. Ditto the Woodward Dream Cruise and some of the larger GoodGuys shows. Is it the end of the world? I doubt it. Personally, as an AACA member, I keep my cars because I enjoy them, not because I am on some mission to preserve history. That's what museums are for. As a matter of fact, I recently sold my Senior award winning 1970 Dart Swinger 340 for a 1971 Cuda 340 that has been mildly modified. Nothing to the exterior or interior, just the motor. I went to the effort of painting the aluminum intake engine color, installed stock valve covers and air cleaner and am running factory correct hoses, clamps, battery, etc. Really, the headers are the only obvious visual mod. Of course when I start the car, right away you know that something is up. The solid cam gives it a much more menacing idle. Why the change? Just wanted to do something that I ejoyed. Okay, I'm an automotive hedonist, I admit it. Back in 2000, I busted tail so I could get a jr & sr which would make me eligible for the AGNM the following year. It turned out that the AGNM landed on the same day as the Woodward Dream Cruise so of course I chose cruising over sitting on a show field with my car. Absolutely no regrets. It's a big hobby Dave, able to accomodate a diverse cross-section of participants. Yes I still cringe when I see a genuine 32-34 Ford hacked into a street rod, no matter how well it is done, but I don't let it ruin my day. If that's the worse thing I ever have to experience in this life, then I will gladly take it. Let's face it, part of the reason these particular cars are so valuable in the first place is due to the fact that so many were wasted on the dirt racing tracks in the 50's. My dad always jokes that he wishes he had even half of the parts those guys threw away when preparing their little 3W and 5W coupes for racing. At 37, I'm probably considered a somewhat young member of the AACA. I enjoy the club, and especially enjoy going to Hershey every year to see the car show, the corral and see what I may need more than someone else in the swap meet area. National meets are great for those who wish to compete with their cars, but after 5 years of trophy chasing, I need a little more to keep me interested. Hitting the local cruise night or organized cruise-in, such as Woodward, is my favorite activity these days. Much more dynamic than sitting around, parked on a show field all day. I don't forsee any immediate demise or shrinking of the AACA, but also, I don't see a 10,000 car national event in its near future either.<P>Rod

[Guest]

Amen Rodlars!!! i'm not into rodding, but i believe in making the cars roadworthy for modern demands. This CAN be accomplished for most cars built after about 1930. We need to keep a good mix of rodders and originality buffs together.

[Guest]

1914 Buick ~ Carter BB1 Carb, 1940 Buick Ignition inside of the original distributor, electric fuel pump. <P>A hot rod? I think not, but it sure makes a heck of a good tourer. So, even we purists stray sometimes. ~ hvs

[ronbarn]

Street rodders Vintage Air AC unit in Big Red, our '61 Cad Conv. Factory AC was just not adequate and the Founders Tours were taking its' toll on our bods. No more fighting high temps. OK, it ain't exactly original, but we do enjoy touring - leaving tomorrow for WI.

[Guest]

Aw...c'mon..you guys...stop whining..it is a FREE country...and people ARE...and SHOULD be...free to do whatever stupid thing they want with their personal property..<P>Sounds like some of you guys would like to set up a "RiechsMinistry Of Restoration", so we could only do with our cars what YOU would let us do...<P>And let's be a little more honest...have ever of you actually DRIVEN a bone-stock ordinary "average man's car" from before World War 2....C'mon....they were MARGINAL when new...designed and built as cheaply as possible, since the average guy wasnt SUPPOSED to be out driving fast with them...that was for RICH people..who bought BIG engined fast REAL classics (the super-powered multi cylindred luxury cars) that had the BRAKES...the COOLING SYTEMS...and the POWER to handle high performance.<P>You almost NEVER ( I say almost...because one of this month's hot rod mags. has an article about a chopped and channeled and hot-rodded '35 Packard Twelve phaeton) see a big engined luxury car from before the War hot-rodded...WHY BOTHER..they are so superior to the ordinary crap of the 1930's....there is no real REASON to hot-rod em....<P>Bottom line...If I had an old Ford...Plymouth..Pontiac...etc...and I felt a need to actually DRIVE the damn thing...I'd do the only common sense thing you could do with an ordinary old car like that....jack up the body...thru the entire chassis and running gear in a dumpster...and mount the exterior sheet metal on modern components....<P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs, AZ<P>( I can't imagine why the guy "hot rodded" a Packard Twelve...best guess...he was clue-less as to how they run when properly maintained...and/or the motor was a wreck...and he may have recognized it takes more than a back-yard mechanic to put one back into serviceable condition... )

[Guest]

Peter,<P>Correct me if I'm wrong... but... didnt a lot of 12cyl Continentals get converted to V8's over the years because their engines where not worth salvaging? Aren't many of those 12cyl continentals CCCA certified?<P>How would you classify these vehicles now? Is it a hotrod? hmmmm....<P>Just curious.<P>Peter<p>[ 07-25-2002: Message edited by: peterg ]

[ply33]

Let me see if I understand Mr. Hartman correctly:<P>1) Any one that would rod the type of old cars I am interested in is stupid, crazy, etc.<P>2) Any one that doesn't rod all the other crap of the same vintage (e.g. any type of car I don't care about) is stupid, crazy, etc.<P>Did I get it right?

[Guest leadfoot]

Tod -<BR>Yup, that's what he said! I guess the real antique cars that count are CLASSICS. Of course that's his opinion, for whatever it's worth.

[Dave@Moon]

Peter H.,<P>Your "almost never" and mine must be very different. I met a guy <I>this week</I> who <I>this year</I> dropped a 350 into an early XKE! Now if Jaguar didn't have a good engine (in a car that did 150 out of the showroom), what did they have? (Maybe he'll be at the criuse-in next to the former Nash Healy.)<P>What I think we are fighting is a mindset that was raised on two generations of Citation and LTDII owners. The old ways of doing things were inferior/inadequate/unreliable/and unsafe to many, <I>and nothing more</I>. I'm sure that the "Jag" owner and '36 Buick owner from the other thread would not hesitate to scrap Ron's '61 Caddy drivetrain within minutes, probably replacing the whole setup out of the new "restoration bible", the Summit Racing catalog. Hell, it doesn't even have MPFI! <P>I'm a purist only in the same sense that Howard is. For one, I'll not drive a car without radial tires if they're appropriate to the wheel and suspension setup. My car has an electric fuel pump, too (and it's a 1960!). <P>As I stated earlier on this thread, the "war" isn't with hot-rodders. I am one, too. <P>The war is for the preservation of the pioneering aspects of motoring. The war is to save the impression of solidity and utility that a 1929 Model A originally presented in abundance. The war is to preserve the remaining, scarce and irreplacable pieces of that heritage that are left, and to show others which pieces those are and why they need to be saved (without necessarily denying the rest to people for their consumption). The war is to show that driving an unmodified nailhead or F-head engine is as thrilling as any 14 second Chevy under a new skin. The war is to show that our grandfathers didn't live in a dark age.<P>And if you read a lot of the postings on this very thread, the war is being lost.

[Guest]

One more time.....I restore cars for the fun of DRIVING them. I can drive a modern car anytime but driving a teens or '20's car takes a little skill, sometimes just to keep it running. My cars are NEVER shown. They're ALL drivers. If I had a 100 pt J Deusenberg, I'd take it out on the interstate at 2:00 A.M. and find out what that supercharger could really do. Driving is the essence and "bottom line" of the antique car hobby. If not driven, a car has lost it's purpose. Trailer queens are large paperweights with wheels. Trophys are visible proof of ego. Purist? Yes, but only insofar as having all original parts. "Rodding" eliminates the possibility of enjoying the experience of driving that particular antique car....for everyone.....for ever.

[Guest]

The problem with preserving a car to a purrist state is becomming more and more impracticle. I have a 56 Packarrd that is very original and low mileage. Streight from the factory it will hold its own with ANY modern vehicle except for economy(nonissue). I've tried real hard to preserve the mechanical and trim components to original. The problem is that depending on automotive machine shops for 'specialty' work is becomming a moot point. I'm will to buy my own lathe (kicking myself now for selling the one i had), mill and head reworking equipment. BUT, there is always something like cylinder boring, crankgrinding and othe VERY specialized machining operations that is just not practicle for a NON-comercial shop.<P>My point, is that regardless of the 'classification' of car (Duesy or 51 chevy) the propensity to drop an SBC and hydramatic into EITHER of the cars or my packard is becomming more and more realistic while the preservation tactics are entering into a stage of art-form only.<P>In some cases, it mite be more worthwhile to retro-fit certain components on a 'temporary' basis while the originals are more patiently and economicly overhauled. <P>These r all judgement calls and cab vary with many different situations.

[Guest]

I've become very partial to the Packard V8 engine. I already have well over a ggrand in the engine and thats just oil pump and valve job doing my OWN labour. One thing is for sure, if i ever have to bore it, grind a crank, or tear something up real bad in it, THEN i WILL pull it out and put a Chevy engine in it. Not sorry i spent the money on the engine and not sorry about the labour i put into it. BUT, SOMEWHERE, the line does have to be drawn for those of us that really do drive the cars on regular basis and under madern demands<BR>.

[R W Burgess]

Gee Guys, You keep bringing this small block Chevy conversion thing up, I'm going to be calling the National Street Rod Association to see if they're missing a few of their members.Wait a minute, on second thought, maybe you guys are NSRA "spys" trying to steal our devoted AACA members? Wayne

[1937hd45]

I don't know why a Packard V8 would be any more expensive to rebuild than any other '50's engine. The latest trend in rodding is nostalgia, SBC's are being trashed and replaced with late 1950's Chrysler Hemis. Maybe you could get an old SBC from a rod to keep the stockers going?

[Guest]

For 1937 hd 45<P>RE: YOUR "post" of 7-26 @ 7:19 am<P>The reason you "dont understand why" the fellow with the Packard V-8 would "swap out" his motor and drive line for a more modern one, is that YOU DONT UNDERSTAND HOW LOW THE LEVEL OF TECHNICAL COMPETENCE IS IN THIS CHAT ROOM !<P>Just LOOK at some of these "posts"...What a sad example of what ever lowering educational standards have done, even to car buffs...who we'd HOPE would be more interested in technology than the average snot nosed zit picking computer geek...<P>Look at Ronbarn...who tells us his factory air in his '61 Caddy was so inadequate he had to "cobble it up" with a VINTAGE AIR set up....Can you IMAGINE...this guy would have us believe he is a car buff, and yet he couldnt be bothered developing the skills of, or finding...a competent automotive air conditioning repairman...! How typical of so many car buffs these days....they do not know, and/or could not care, how machines are SUPPOSED to run. <P>Now in case of "Pack. V8"...here we have a guy whose Packard came with a "modern" short stroke V-8..factory equipped with insert rod bearings and chrome rings. And yet he thinks overhauling this is too much for him.....<P>If he actually KNEW how "modern" short stroke V-8's behave in service when properly maintained, he'd know that PERHAPS at around 150,000 mi., might be a good idea to grind the valves, and maybe up around 200,000 mi. it might need a set of rings and rod bearings. The Packard V-8 was not rocket-science. True, the Packard had so degenerated towards the end of its days, SOME of them were put together so sloppy, they failed coming out of the dealer's door. And their transmissions were awful. But they will run, and keep running, if you change the oil once in a while. This fellow wont LIVE long enough to wear the damn thing out if he drove it wide open most of the time. And what's the big deal about doing a "ring and valve job". It is VERY rare that a modern automotive engine needs a re-bore or a crankshaft job in normal service, absent gross abuse (such as running it without oil, over-heating to extremes..etc).<P>And we have LEADFOOT...who thinks that "classics are antiques". Which is it...LEADFOOT...? You have a reading disability, or you just dont know that the CLASSIC era was from 1925 to the early 1940's, and ENDED when cars became "modern" in styling. It is getting TOO much to hope for, that even car buffs these days have a CLUE what they are talking about. ANTIQUES....hang on..LEADFOOT...I will take you thru this real slow....ANTIQUE cars....(are you following me so far)...have ANTIQUE features...guess what...a modern short-stroke overhead valve V-8, and "jig welded" sheet metal body with air conditioning, power windows, hydraulic transmission, fat ballon tires...etc....these are NOT "antique" features. Nor where they known in the CLASSIC era. ANTIQUE features...are "T" head engines...NO electrical systems (other than an ignition magneto)..headlights....if any...were accetyle/carbide gas.. brakes...two wheel...and of the "external contracting" type. Once you get into "internal expanding" brakes, "on board" electrical systems, ballon tires, etc...which emerged in the early 1920's...CANT BE AN ANTIQUE ! And an ORDINARY old car of ANY age...cant be a CLASSIC...by definition...a CLASSIC is typically an unusally large, powerful, luxury car, set apart from the ordinary by the "arrogance of its excellence"...<P>Peter wonders why so many Lincoln Continental owners junked the V-12's their cars came with, and installed modern engines.....Peter..if you ever worked on one, you'd KNOW....! The Lincoln CONTINENTAL V-12 was a cobbled up mess...designed to be cheaply made on Ford V-8 tooling. It was no bigger in displacement, or more powerful, that those dinky little Packard "120" motors. And it had a terrible reputation for over-heating, lack of power....etc. It was related to the "REAL" Lincoln V-12's of the REAL "classic" era only in name (example...the beautifully made, fast and powerful REAL Lincoln V-12 displaced over a hundred and fifty cubic inches MORE...when is the last time you saw someone with a "real" Lincoln "pull" one of those massive V-12's and replace it with a modern engine...! Peter..you SHOULD know better...the Lincoln Continental was a typical piece of Ford "econo CRAP" masquerading as a luxury car...!<P>And last, we have PLY 33, who somehow got the idea I think hot rodding is "stupid and lazy". Another "reading disability" situation..? If you had actually READ and UNDERSTOOD my "posts"..you'd see that I LOVE hot rods. <P>Every time I see one, I am impressed with the dedication, workmanship, and ingenuity these guys use, to take some awful "econo-box" that BRAND NEW wouldn't be adequate for modern driving, and make it into something useful. True, on VERY rare occasons one DOES see a guy mess up a car that would be a nice "driver" if he just took the time to learn what it was all about..and...yes...I have mixed feelings about that.<P>But let's get back to the "bottom line"....this is a FREE country. We owe it to ourselves to try and spread KNOWLEDGE, so that hopefully, our fellow car buffs can LEARN about the various eras of technology, and "spread the word" about how interesting it is. But EDUCATING is not passing JUDGMENT. I WISH guys would take a little effort to invest the time and inconvenience to operate AUTHENTIC old "econo-box" cars, but if they wont, or cant....IT'S THEIR CAR !<P>Pete Hartmann

[Mark Huston]

Another example that the battle is being lost to the rodders is this Ebay listing for a 1942 Studebaker President (war time black out model no chrome) a rare car. The listing on Ebay states that for a 200.00 credit the engine/drive train will be removed if at the time of sell the buyer plans on rodding the car, and the seller even has a picture of a rodded example so you can see what the car could look like after you rod this one!<P>Why could he not show an example of what the car would look like restored? Are those pictures harder to find? <P>If you want to see this car on Ebay here it is (and no I am not involved in the sale of this car) <A HREF="http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1846454183" TARGET=_blank>http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1846454183</A><p>[ 07-26-2002: Message edited by: Mark Huston ]

[Guest]

Of the 70 or so odd posts here... I've heard lots about the problem: Hot rodders rodding perfectly restorable cars... etc. etc. etc.<P>I think we've adequately identified the problem. <span style="font-weight: bold">Can we all agree on that?</span><BR><hr><P>Now... <span style="font-weight: bold">the real question is...</span> is there a way to fix this problem?

[56clipper]

Sure, that Studebaker is restorable, but looking at the listing I think I can see what the guy is getting at. The car needs everything. From his perspective, the amount of money and effort needed to get it restored might not be worth it to most people. Also, his bottom line it to sell it, to by offering the suggestion of rodding it, he may think he's opening it up to more potential bidders. Showing the picture of one already rodded is actually smart from a sales perspective -- here's what it could look like, someone else did it. Having sold one old car on ebay (another '56 Clipper) I know what it's like to want to try and get the best price you can for something that needs tons of work. Of course, I didn't mention anything in my listing about turning it into a rod. I said that it was an excellent candidate for restoration, and at this point in time I couldn't restore it, so I wanted to sell it to someone who would restore it. I had already bought my current Clipper, so mony wasn't the issue so much as getting it to a good home. But then again, that was my aim. <P>Now don't get me wrong -- I don't like rods or customs very much. But for someone trying to unload a total resoration project, they might see that as their only way out. I give the lister credit for at least stating how rare it is and that he'd like to see it restored. <P>As far as the "low level" of expertise on car mechanic skills that was alluded to in a previous post, I will state that unequivocably, I don't have the experience that most everyone here has, and I also have found a lot of good tips and info on this forum. I'm 25 years old and a high school history teacher (you know, the perpetrator of those "lower educational standards"). I didn't grow up working on cars, so I don't have those types of experiences to build on. (I can, however, change oil. And I can overhaul brake systems and other stuff). I've got a "common man's" car (which I also happen to like a lot) which I will continue to drive as long as I can. Can I overhaul the engine? not at this point in time. Am I trying to learn all this stuff? Sure. Do I have a modern AM-FM Cassette deck in the glove box so I can listen to my Doo-Wop oldies mixes while I drive? You bet. I'm proud of myself 'cause I just figured out how to wire that radio through the original rear speaker knob on the dash. Modern sound with original appearance. I can certainly understand about the air conditioning on that '61 Caddy. I was looking into just that topic yesterday. One thing right, though -- to each his own when it comes to what you do with your car.<P>I'll just have fun in my uneducated and unskilled way tooling around town in my classically antique old car thingy...

[Dave@Moon]

Peter,<P>My first post on this thread alluded to at least one problem I've noted in the antique hobby of late. I started this post on a gorgeous April day that had absolutely perfect touring weather. I'd been out on the road locally for hours. I saw hundreds of bikers, dozens of hot rods, <I>and not one antique car of any kind!</I> <P>It may be a slight cultural difference between my new home in Cincy and points further east, but it seems to be increasingly rare that anyone brings out an older car these days. In my opinion, we are rapidly becoming an invisible hobby.<P>For example, I live 2 doors down from a past CORSA local president. After 10 months in this house, his <I>wife</I> finally told me about their car in the garage! Until then I had no idea.<P>Even at static shows it's beginning to be a problem. I attended the Buick National in Kokomo, IN 2 weeks ago. Aside from a 1921 Buick panel truck brought by GM as part of their display, the oldest car at the National was from 1929! Buick has perhaps the richest heritage of brass era cars in existence, yet <B>none</B> of the cars remaining were owned by people who'd thought to bring them and share them with the other BCA members at a national convention dedicated to the marque.<P>There are other solutions as well to raising the visibility of the hobby, I'm sure. But at least we can encourage the owners of cars that rarely appear outside the owners' small clique of favored events to be more active in the promotion of what they enjoy.<P>Take your '22 Packard to the local cruise.<P>Attend your local drive in in your Rambler.<P>Go to chruch in the Studebaker once and a while.<P>Give the neighbor's kid a ride if he/she's interested.<P><B>Be visible or die!</B>

[Guest]

Well now!!!! PFH has SURE changed his tune about mid-50's Packards. In other chat rooms and posts he has always deggraded the 55-56 Packards as 'Do it yourself kits' as they reached the dealer when new. Come on PFH, WHICH way is it????? I agree that Packard V8 can be streightened out. IN FACT i am one of the very few people with a V8 that has streightened it out AND run it at hi speeds. IN DOING so i am here to say that an SBC would have been much sheaper and just as powerful in the short or long run. This is NOT a matter of was the old-iron any good or not it is matter of convienece and economy to go with the SBC.

[Guest Hal Davis (MODEL A HAL)]

Don't hold back, Peter Hartman. Tell us how you really feel. Maybe, if you think about it long enough (since it seems you are the only person on this forum with the capacity for rational thought), there would be some other DF'ers you'd like to insult. Perhaps we should have the "Ask Peter" forum where you could share your wealth of superior knowlege with the rest of us inferior products of the public school system.

[Guest]

PeterG. YES, the problem is well identified BUT, not yet completely defined. Some people think that changing a carb from 2 bbl to 4bbl is hot-rodding if the factory did not offer a 4bbl. SO, what is hot rodding and what is NOT??? (jeez i hate to start this)

[Guest]

Lets keep this simple - we all "know" the different between an original car and a hotrod. <P>This thread is not about defining a hotrod, it's about promoting original cars.<P>Peter

[Steve Moskowitz]

I have made my position pretty clear in previous posts that I prefer PRESERVEATION and RESTORATION over modifying but the most important thing is to enjoy the automotive hobby however one chooses. I have been involved in a lot more restorations than most folks and still do not consider myself an EXPERT in the hobby. I am amazed how Mr. Hartman has deemed himself the guru of all things automotive. There certainly are some inaccuracies in his statements but there is no need to get into them.<P>I do have a huge problem with his attack on some individuals. To attack Ron Barnett without knowing how much he has given to the AACA is just plain wrong! While Ron and I are only acquaintances, I have certainly followed over the last several decades all the assignments he has had within our organization. Obviously, he has owned and restored numerous cars and motorcycles as well.<P>Although I am a former body shop employee, teacher in auto mechanics, GM factory service rep, etc. there still are things in this hobby that I am not talented nor experienced enough to figure out or accomplish myself. I think most of us, even some professional restorers are in the same category. We should now bring all our questions, concerns apparently to the real experts on this forum.<P>I thought the original post was something that deserved thought and discussion but I have learned that there are some guys who are "know it alls" and their opinions usually speak volumes about who they really are.

[R W Burgess]

Amen Brother Oldscarnut!

[Guest]

For INREGIS V-8 :<P>Nope...not "changing my tune". Perhaps you did not read my critique of the post-war Packards carefully..?<P>Incidentally, I can't take credit for that "insult" to the last of the Packards as<P> "do it yourself kits".<P>I thought I'd previously admitted I stole that joke from the Service Manager of Beverly Hills Packard. One afternoon, I was sitting with him and a Packard salesman, just "shooting the bull", when a car transporter rolled up with a bunch of then new ones (this would have been around late '55). Poor guy was so aggravated - he remembered when Packard CARED what it was selling - in the "glory days" when they'd go down and pick the cars up at the freight yard, clean em up, take the hub-caps out of the trunk....and SELL em !<P>In this respect, Packard was a "leader"...the kind of sloppy disregard for fit and finish showed up later in most all American manufactuerers..I remember picking up my mom's new Buick, around 73...the damn thing had, amongst other problems, a bad "list" from a collapsing front spring...primer showing thru on a door, and half the accessories werent hooked up....!<P>As for the '55 - '56 Packard V-8's, I know little about them, since other than tune-ups, I never worked on them, and never owned one.<P>I am not aware of any remarkable difference in either concept or execution of the Packard V-8 over other short stroke over-head valve American production engines of that era. I am unaware of ANY engine of that design theory that is inherently "bad". Take decent care of em, and somewhere around 150 - 200,000 mi. they may need a minor over-haul (rings, valves, rod bearings).<P>What you may be thinking of, is my comments regarding sloppy workmanship - the "fit and finish" at Packard got so bad towards the end, they were a bad joke. At one auto show, Nance got trapped by a badly fitting door...had to actually KICK his way out of the back seat of a new 400 / Patrician.<P>Yes, there are some technical "goofs" in the Packard V-8 (that "air in the oil lines" problem, and that goofy vacuum pump etc., ) but a reading of either of the two Packard organization's publications will get these squared away. If I had one, I'd run it, and run it just as hard and often as I run my Packard Twelve....and if I broke it..I'd fix it. No big deal.

[Guest]

<font size="=5" COLOR="RED"><B><BR>COME ON FOLKS... STAY ON SUBJECT! THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT PACKARDS OR SMALL BLOCK CHEVY ENGINES! IF YOU WANT TO DISCUSS THOSE SUBJECTS THEN START A NEW THREAD.<P>THIS IS A WORTHY SUBJECT THAT DESERVES TO BE DISCUSSED WITHOUT GETTING OFF TRACK!</B><BR></FONT><p>[ 07-26-2002: Message edited by: peterg ]